Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Modern science has not conclusively determined whether randomness is a result of our lack of understanding or is fundamental to the laws of nature. This is a red herring in any event.
This is true for quantum mechanics, which I explicitly noted was irrelevant to ID when I first challenged you on this point. Aside from that, there are all sorts of interesting philosophical issues one can get into when asking whether classical physics is deterministic or not (including the obvious problem that classical physics is only an approximation to QM), but there is no getting away from the fact that chance, as it usually appears in physical theories, is used to describe systems for which we also have more fundamental deterministic descriptions.
Science does with out a doubt take notice, and account for, the concept of chance as a governor of outcomes. It also recognizes chance as distinct from an event that occurs deterministically. In fact, science even goes so far as to distinguish between the two when both are at play. Statistical thermodynamics is a good example.
Statistical mechanics is exactly the wrong example for you to choose. Classical statistical mechanics describes the behavior of ensembles of systems, all in the same macroscopic state but differing in their microstates. The physics of the microstates, however, is fully deterministic (in this classical description, of course). Thus an atomic physicist might describe in detail the scattering of individual atoms using deterministic equations; take the same atoms and introduce more of them into the system, and a statistical mechanical description is the natural way to describe it, even though the underlying deterministic physics has not changed at all. As I said, different ways of describing the same system, not fundamentally different processes.
In the case of games of chance design can be applied to bias the outcomes. Design, as in the case of pure chance, governs outcomes. I can influence and determine outcomes by applying design. It is very simple.
You're not responding to my arguments; you're just repeating yourself. The shape and weight of the die (i.e. necessity) govern the outcome. You can design a loaded die all you want, but until you change the physical die, nothing changes. Design is not a characteristic of the die, which (whether loaded or unloaded) continues to be a macroscopic physical object obeying deterministic laws, and whose behavior can be described by a probability distribution; "design" says something about the intent of someone who is not part of the system. By observing the behavior of a die, you can deduce its physical characteristics and whether it is loaded. What you can't deduce is whether the bias in a loaded die is the result of design or not, i.e. the physical state of the die does not have that information. (Not unless you find out how it is loaded, and apply other knowledge about manufacturing defects.)
Science disagrees with you. It is prefectly corehent. Evolution depends on it being coherent.
In what way does evolution depend on distinguishing between chance, necessity and design?
Last edited by sfs; 5th October 2009 at 12:29 PM.
Reason: Sand down a rough edge
Modern science has not conclusively determined whether randomness is a result of our lack of understanding or is fundamental to the laws of nature.
Quite the contrary; it is clear from modern science that quantum randomness is fundamental, and classical / macroscopic randomness is a result of our lack of knowledge of initial conditions (not understanding of systemic behavior). The main fuss right now is about where one transitions over to the other and how to deal with it philosophically; but the scientific ideas are fairly well-agreed upon.
Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay
This is a red herring in any event. Science does with out a doubt take notice, and account for, the concept of chance as a governor of outcomes. It also recognizes chance as distinct from an event that occurs deterministically. In fact, science even goes so far as to distinguish between the two when both are at play. Statistical thermodynamics is a good example.
Statistical thermodynamics is the worst possible example. Any statistical thermodynamic treatment of a system starts with the microscopic behavior of a component of a system, in full deterministic treatment, and then averages it out over unknown initial conditions. For example, the derivation of the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) starts by considering the recoil of a single atom off a wall of a box containing gas, which is entirely deterministic, and then sums over all the atoms present in the box.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Could you please tell me why my argument is invalid when yours is valid? Just repeating that mine "lacks a grounding in truth conditions" is not an answer, by the way; postulating an unevidenced intelligent designer lacks a grounding in truth conditions to exactly the same extent as postulating an unevidenced featherless biped.
I did answer. If your argument has no possible set of truth conditions then the conclusion is vacuous. My argument has a possible set of truth conditions that make it possible. That is an answer.
This is true for quantum mechanics, which I explicitly noted was irrelevant to ID when I first challenged you on this point. Aside from that, there are all sorts of interesting philosophical issues one can get into when asking whether classical physics is deterministic or not (including the obvious problem that classical physics is only an approximation to QM), but there is no getting away from the fact that chance, as it usually appears in physical theories, is used to describe systems for which we also have more fundamental deterministic descriptions.
This is still a red herring. Chance does govern outcomes. That is what is important. Philosophical rumination about why we observe chance is irrelevant. We have an entire discipline in mathematics describing how to quantify chance called probability theory, and we have an additional discipline in mathematics describing how to harness chance observations called statistics.
Statistical mechanics is exactly the wrong example for you to choose.
Like I said, it is a good example of why your conflating of necessity and chance are irrelevant, because we recognize both concepts and yet we distinguish between the two models and use probability theory to do the analysis, ergo, using the notion of necessity and chance as a way of viewing how the results in the world are produced is not an "incoherent" view. Far from it.
You're not responding to my arguments; you're just repeating yourself.
I'm not responding to your red herring. You pretended that introducing necessity, chance and design constituted in some vague way an incoherent argument. This is non sense. You introduce a red herring by pleading chance and necessity are ultimately the same. I directly responded to your argument. My example of the dice clearly demonstrates that design is detectable as bias in the game. Someone rigged the dice. This is the fundamental and relevant point.
By observing the behavior of a die, you can deduce its physical characteristics and whether it is loaded. What you can't deduce is whether the bias in a loaded die is the result of design or not, i.e. the physical state of the die does not have that information.
You can infer design. That is the point. No one is claiming there is a physical law that says X was designed. This is an inference, which is done all the time in historical sciences. Inference to the best explanation is a legitimate form of scientific reasoning.
In what way does evolution depend on distinguishing between chance, necessity and design?
The laws of nature allow life as a chemical machine to function. Chance provides random mutations. You know this and I should not have to explain it.
Quite the contrary; it is clear from modern science that quantum randomness is fundamental,
No, our theories of the quantum world allows us to predict with fantastic accuracy, but we still do not know why the world is the way it is. We do not know if there are yet more fundamental laws which will explain the bizarre world of QM.
and classical / macroscopic randomness is a result of our lack of knowledge of initial conditions (not understanding of systemic behavior).
The problem is not our lack of knowledge of the initial conditions. It is the systems sensitivity to the initial conditions (minuscule variations produce wide results in chaotic systems), and the shear complexity of any real world system. At some slice in time you can pick a set of initial conditions, but the total system is unpredictable and unmodelable because of its complexity. Furthermore, even if a system is chaotic and complex this does not mean that real randomness may not play a role in nature. We can not say with surety that all systems are ultimately deterministic. They may appear to be so at the macro level, but this does not mean the appearance is the full truth.
This is still all a red herring because it is perfectly legitimate to talk of chance as a governing factor in results.
The main fuss right now is about where one transitions over to the other and how to deal with it philosophically; but the scientific ideas are fairly well-agreed upon.
Fuss? Hardly. Modern physics is not "fussing" over a unified theory. They are profoundly stumped! The philosophy of the "whys" of the quantum world are metaphysical questions because of our inability to scientifically answer questions that lie squarely in the realm of science.
Statistical thermodynamics is the worst possible example.
No, it is a fine example of my point, i.e. science recognizes necessity and chance as governing factors.
And the rest of the universe is not complex enough? Just like with the rest of the physical world, there is no empirical evidence that there is a designer behind DNA. With Occam's Razor alone, we can rule out ID. The whole idea of ID, it seems to me, is an appeal to ignorance. That is, if there isn't a good enough explanation for something, we can simply relegate it to the intelligent designer.
While I'm not entirely sure if computational complexity theory can be applied to things like DNA or "the universe" in the first place, let's assume it can be. So, you have a way to measure complexity. Now what? Is there a specific number where things automatically become "intelligently designed?" Is it modeled on some mathematical function where only certain things are intelligently designed?
Intelligent Design is nothing more than a hypothesis. There's no actual evidence for it. The central claim of irreducible complexity has no real testability, partly because it's so vague and partly because because it has been proven wrong over and over. The other central claim of specified complexity continues the use of the vague language, and also uses mathematics improperly to form its argumentative base.
BTW - What is your avatar? What does Dark_Lite mean anyway?
My avatar is Anakin from Star Wars Episode III. My name is just something I made up many years ago at a Starcraft fan site for their forums. Nowadays, it has a nebulous retconned symbolism that doesn't really mean anything. But, it keeps some people guessing.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
And the rest of the universe is not complex enough? Just like with the rest of the physical world, there is no empirical evidence that there is a designer behind DNA.
As I explained many times already everything that is complex is not also specified.
With Occam's Razor alone, we can rule out ID.
Occam's razor does not apply here.
The whole idea of ID, it seems to me, is an appeal to ignorance. That is, if there isn't a good enough explanation for something, we can simply relegate it to the intelligent designer.
No. It does not rely on the lack of an alternative. It actively reasons based on evidence. This means it is not an argument from ignorance.
While I'm not entirely sure if computational complexity theory can be applied to things like DNA or "the universe" in the first place, let's assume it can be.
Kolmorgorov Complexity is not a measure of computational complexity. It is a way to measure complexity based on a theoretical computation. Computational complexity theory uses other measures such as Big O.
So, you have a way to measure complexity. Now what? Is there a specific number where things automatically become "intelligently designed?" Is it modeled on some mathematical function where only certain things are intelligently designed?
These are good and pertinent questions. Now you are referring to Dembski's work. I'm in the process of digesting the mathematics. I'm aware there are many vague claims about the invalidness of Dembski's work(I read the wikis too). There are also some actual papers claiming to demonstrate errors in his mathematics. I need to get his book No Free Lunch. As I have stated before I'm just now getting into ID. I like what I have read so far. Once I've dug deeper I'll probably strike up a debate on another site.
Suffice it to say that Dembski's work is statistical in nature. This means just like any statistically tested hypothesis it does not prove something. It provides plausible reason to believe it with a mathematical basis. You understand the notion of a statistical test correct?
Intelligent Design is nothing more than a hypothesis. There's no actual evidence for it.
False
The central claim of irreducible complexity has no real testability, partly because it's so vague and partly because because it has been proven wrong over and over.
I'm reading Behe's book now. I plan to read his second book also. My opinion of irreducible complexity is yet to be formed. The irreducible complexity of DNA certainly has not been proven wrong.
The other central claim of specified complexity continues the use of the vague language, ...
It is no more vague then the theories of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred.
and also uses mathematics improperly to form its argumentative base.
Well that is the claim, but I'm not convinced. The argument made in Signature in the Cell does not depend on Dembski's mathematics.
My avatar is Anakin from Star Wars Episode III. My name is just something I made up many years ago at a Starcraft fan site for their forums. Nowadays, it has a nebulous retconned symbolism that doesn't really mean anything. But, it keeps some people guessing.
As I explained many times already everything that is complex is not also specified.
So why is DNA specified? Just because it happens to link together in certain patterns? All chemicals do that. Is every single chemical intelligently designed?
Occam's razor does not apply here.
How so?
Kolmorgorov Complexity is not a measure of computational complexity. It is a way to measure complexity based on a theoretical computation. Computational complexity theory uses other measures such as Big O.
Big-O specifically measures algorithmic efficiency. The Kolmorgorov Complexity theory is from computer science. Specifically, it measures the amount of computational resources needed for calculations. Sounds like computational complexity to me.
Suffice it to say that Dembski's work is statistical in nature. This means just like any statistically tested hypothesis it does not prove something. It provides plausible reason to believe it with a mathematical basis. You understand the notion of a statistical test correct?
The problem with the statistical nature of his work is that the statistics are dubious, as is his math.
False
Why is it false? Where's the empirical evidence besides "DNA has patterns?"
Guessing about what?
I don't really know.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
So why is DNA specified? Just because it happens to link together in certain patterns? All chemicals do that. Is every single chemical intelligently designed?
I explained this several times in a couple of threads. DNA is specified because it matches a predetermined pattern. The pattern is that it encodes the nano machines of cellular biology. Obviously, any random collection of chemicals do not do that.
How so?
Occam's Razor allows you to reduce an explanation iff the resultant explanation does not loose explanatory power. Shaving off explanation just because you don't like the explanation is not the proper use of Occam's razor.
Big-O specifically measures algorithmic efficiency. The Kolmorgorov Complexity theory is from computer science. Specifically, it measures the amount of computational resources needed for calculations. Sounds like computational complexity to me.
Not quite. It is true people use the term "efficient" loosely in these contexts, but O(n*2) can be written efficiently or inefficiently and it is still O(n*2) - because O(k) is zero. When someone says that an algorithm is O(n*2) they are telling you something about the upper bound of the algorithm's time complexity not its efficiency. In other words Big O describes something fundamental to the algorithm not about how it was written. If I tell you an algorithm is P or NP this is telling you something fundamentally true about the algorithm itself(within the limits of knowledge of current computational complexity theory). Because these characteristics are fundamental to the algorithm and independent of any possible implementation it is a measure of complexity.
Kolmogorov complexity uses computational algorithms to measure complexity, but it can be used on any sequence or "string". Obviously DNA is a sequence. Just because the most common source of strings of interest are computational strings does not mean that the method is limited to these types of strings.
The problem with the statistical nature of his work is that the statistics are dubious, as is his math.
I suppose you have verified this personally. I have not. I plan to. Just a minute ago you did not appear to even understand that it was statistical in nature. I am skeptical of claims by everyone in this area. I believe there is a tendency for people to project what they want to be true as opposed to what is true.
Why is it false? Where's the empirical evidence besides "DNA has patterns?"
Where is the empirical evidence proving that a fluted stone is the product of a hominid?
I don't understand why you would want them guessing about something you are not sure what they are guessing about. Doesn't this kind of leave the guessing wide open? I would think we don't want people guessing.
I explained this several times in a couple of threads. DNA is specified because it matches a predetermined pattern. The pattern is that it encodes the nano machines of cellular biology. Obviously, any random collection of chemicals do not do that.
Random collections of chemcials match predetermined patterns. We always know that combining two atoms of oxygen and one hydrogen will give us water. It always happens. The complex chemical structure hydrocarbons will always produce the same thing. They form naturally and into patterns. Are they intelligently designed? This argument of course extends to much more complicated compounds (i.e. DNA).
Occam's Razor allows you to reduce an explanation iff the resultant explanation does not loose explanatory power. Shaving off explanation just because you don't like the explanation is not the proper use of Occam's razor.
But there is nothing lost when getting rid of ID, except for a few people, apparently.
Not quite. It is true people use the term "efficient" loosely in these contexts, but O(n*2) can be written efficiently or inefficiently and it is still O(n*2) - because O(k) is zero. When someone says that an algorithm is O(n*2) they are telling you something about the upper bound of the algorithm's time complexity not its efficiency. In other words Big O describes something fundamental to the algorithm not about how it was written. If I tell you an algorithm is P or NP this is telling you something fundamentally true about the algorithm itself(within the limits of knowledge of current computational complexity theory). Because these characteristics are fundamental to the algorithm and independent of any possible implementation it is a measure of complexity.
I am well aware of what Big-O is. I am a computer scientist. "Time complexity?" Sounds like efficiency to me. Sounds like we are arguing semantics here. But Big-O is pretty much unrelated to this.
Kolmogorov complexity uses computational algorithms to measure complexity, but it can be used on any sequence or "string". Obviously DNA is a sequence. Just because the most common source of strings of interest are computational strings does not mean that the method is limited to these types of strings.
Ok. Lots of things in the world are sequences.
I suppose you have verified this personally. I have not. I plan to. Just a minute ago you did not appear to even understand that it was statistical in nature. I am skeptical of claims by everyone in this area. I believe there is a tendency for people to project what they want to be true as opposed to what is true.
I haven't exactly verified it personally. However, when multiple other people publish papers that thoroughly destroy every argument put forth in an ID paper and show why the mathematics is wrong, there's a very likely chance that it's wrong. It's not on part of some conspiracy in academia, and it's not because ID is some radical new discovery that hasn't been able to take root in the science world yet. It's because ID is yet another attempt to get creationism to not sound like creationism.
Where is the empirical evidence proving that a fluted stone is the product of a hominid?
This entire thread shows why that argument is invalid. The entire thing hinges on the definition of "specified" and "complex." Research in the field of abiogenesis provides strong evidence the other way in showing how DNA could have arisen naturally. That gets rid of the "specifiedness" and reduces the argument (once again) to "because DNA has a pattern, there must be an intelligent designer." And of course, the definition of "complex" part has already been touched on.
I don't understand why you would want them guessing about something you are not sure what they are guessing about. Doesn't this kind of leave the guessing wide open? I would think we don't want people guessing.
But the guessing is half the fun.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
Linear Mode
